Masters of radiology panel discussion: role of communication in today's radiologic practices.
H. Forman,M. Javitt,B. Monsees,J. Crowe,N. Beauchamp,D. Larson,A. Kaye,E. Kazerooni,A. Norbash,N. Messinger,H. Hricak,J. Thrall
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.4060
2010-04-01
Abstract:INTRODUCTION. Each quarter, the AJR will publish the transcripts of the Masters of Radiology panel discussion hosted by Dr. Howard P. Forman and Dr. Marcia C. Javitt. The panel will review topics of importance to the field of radiology and share their unique insight into how these issues are shaping or will shape the future of the specialty. Forman: The topic I want to discuss today is the role technology plays in communicating critical results to patients and our referring physicians, not from a medico-legal perspective, but from a day-to-day perspective on how it has affected our practice of radiology and our relationships with referring clinicians. I'd also like to discuss whether technology has helped raise our professional profiles in health care circles or made us more "hidden" to other clinicians. Javitt: I think we need to take a look at the role that critical reports play in our departments. In this case, I view technology as a double-edged sword. Our facility does not yet have a critical results reporting system. We must manually identify the correct person to notify, report the critical result to them, note the attempts to speak with the correct person in the record, and when reached, ensure that the referring provider understands the results that we have given to them. On the upside, an automated system can accomplish all of these tasks much more efficiently. The downside, of course, can be that all too often there is no personal contact between the radiologist and the referring provider. That shortcoming may well jeopardize our significance in the health care loop and further "commoditize" our efforts as procedure-based subspecialists. One way to deal with that commoditization is to request a call from the referring physician in the message from the automated critical results reporting system to ensure that the direct contact is made. Many new automated systems exist or are being introduced to facilitate this communication and documentation process, such as the audit trail and node authentication (ATNA) system. The bottom line is that we have to compensate for the use of these automated systems by redoubling our efforts at direct communications with referring providers. Monsees: As a breast imager, we have a unique situation at [the Mallinckrodt Institute of Technology, St. Louis] in that we have a test-results communication policy in place, primarily for residents and fellows, that if they find an unusual or expected finding, they must make contact with somebody. They need to record that person's first and last name, and document the date and the time that contact was attempted or made. That said, in breast imaging in general, our situation is a little different than the rest of the profession in that we don't have the same types of cases and circumstances. However, we do share the need to ensure that patients don't fall through the communication cracks. Our patients have diverse needs and expectations of us, and we need to ensure that these are met. As an example, for a regular screening mammogram, much of the communication of test results to the patient and referring physician is done by automated response. However, as part of the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), federal law mandates that we send a lay letter to any patient with a test result that is suspicious or questionable. (Editor's Note: MQSA requires a "summary of the written report shall be sent directly to the patient in terms easily understood by a lay person." This rule applies to every patient who receives a mammogram, not only self-referred patients. For more information on lay letters and for sample letters, please visit http://www.acr.org/accreditation/mammography/mammo_sample_letters. aspx.) Several advocacy groups pushed for this requirement during one MQSA reauthorization to ensure that patients are notified promptly and properly. For routine screening patients, we don't see them while they are in the department. The system will generate a lay letter to the patient with a letter to the referring physician to report uneventful results. If a test is abnormal, we call the patient to schedule a follow-up appointment in addition to sending her a lay letter notifying her of the abnormal finding. In the letter, we request that she contact the department to schedule a return visit if she does not hear from us. When patients return for a follow-up, we sit down and discuss the results with them one-on-one so it does give us, as radiologists, a "face." We have a face and the patients know their radiologist. In my opinion, many women who routinely go to a breast imager are aware they are dealing with a radiologist. While a lot of the routine communication with referring physicians is done through an automated system, we do contact them personally when the situation requires it. As a result, most of the physicians we deal with trust us to handle things in a proper and timely manner and follow up questionable test results with them. This, in fact, has brought us closer to both our patients and referring clinicians. As a result, this process has helped us ensure that we don't have patients falling through the cracks. Forman: Do you feel your situation is unique to breast imaging or germane to the entire practice of radiology? Monsees: I feel that breast imagers, because they interact with patients more frequently through the use of ultrasounds, biopsies, and such, are going to foster that open line of dialogue, and that most places do follow this type of practice in some fashion. Those that continue to follow the "old-fashioned" methods likely will continue.